It's often been said that "honey catches more flies than vinegar". The same might be said for more mellow atheist approaches to entice the believer side to be more seriously attentive to us, as opposed to dismissing unbelievers as collective grumps merely intent to toss cold water on their beliefs. Surely, the spate of recent atheist books - from Richard Dawkins ('The God Delusion'), Sam Harris ('The End of Faith') and Christopher Hitchens ('God is Not Great') have more solidified atheists in the latter category.
Enter now Julia Sweeney, who should be a national resource, or at least an atheist resource. With her gentle and humorous jabs at belief, as seen in her Showtime special, "Letting Go Of God', she shows how a deft mix of satire, humor and probing questions (asked innocuously) can have a devastating effect.
Sweeney seems to understand the "honey-vinegar" meme to a tee, and so she uses her innocent appearance, twinkling eyes and self-deprecating humor to probably score more points for the unbeliever side in ten minutes of her monologue than all the atheist writers (listed above) in their three books.
Her 'Letting Go' routine takes the viewer across a mini-biopic, in examining her initial religious development - starting at age 7 ("the age of reason") until a loved one's death and her own bout with health issues. When at age 7 her mom informs her: "Now, from now on Julie, God will be keeping notes on you!" Little Julie's response is: "So wait, all the time before God didn't notice me?!"
Shortly later, her parents inform her there really isn't a "Santa", and in her mind Julie slowly pieces together the "no Santa" and "no God" arcs. After all, it always seemed odd to her that the Xmas presents showed up after High Mass on Christmas Eve.
Midway in her comedy monologue, Julia relates a Catholic retreat she had to go on with her senior class from Gonzaga Prep (then coed) and how, after everyone had received their holy communion, one of her classmates blurted: "Wouldn't it be great if we were all killed on the way back, then we'd all go straight to heaven!"
An innocent remark, but hilarious in context, since the key for Catholic entrance through the pearly gates is to die in sanctifying grace. Thus, the classmate reasoned correctly (at least in Catholic context) the best time to croak would be when one was definitely in the sanctifying grace mold, following the communion, and en route back home.
This gets Julia thinking of the existential basis of belief and why people cling to it at all. Here she references one of the famous quotes of psychologist William James ('The Will to Believe'):
"A thing doesn't work because it's true, it's true because it works!"
Which, of course, is the whole basis of modern science. Thus, rocket propulsion works as evidenced by the thousands sent up so far, from near Earth orbit, all the way to explore the outer planets. Thus, rocket propulsion is true. Not so for "transubtantiation" which is only believed to be so.
Julia then takes James' quote and applies it to God belief:
"Just because the idea of God works so well for me doesn't mean he really exists".
Which is the whole point! That is, an idea (not anything more) can work as if it is real, if the mind believes it 100%. Julia then reinforces this by reference to other invisible things, noting, "when you think about it, the invisible and the non-existent are pretty much alike".
Of course, in physics we have "invisible" things such as electric and magnetic fields, but one can establish their existence by their interactions with actual objects. For example, place a bar magnet down on a sheet of paper and move a magnetic compass (directional compass) around its periphery at a distance of 4- 6 cm and you'll find it constantly deflects, betraying the existence of the magnetic field. OR, scatter iron filings around the magnet and you'll see them re-arrange to form the pattern of the underlying field. For an electric field, simply set up an electroscope and bring a charged (polythene) rod near the conducting cap and watch as its leaves deflect. Thus, the E-field can also be demonstrated. But up to now no believer has been similarly able to demonstrate the existence of "souls", "demons" or any other phantasms from the alleged supernatural. In that case, we can safely conclude indeed, that the invisible is non-existent.
Such ruminations propel Julia in her monologue to smile and ask: "So how do I KNOW what I know?"
She then introduces Stephen Pinker's 'How the Mind Works', pointedly noting the human brain is incapable of perceiving its own functioning. This is why when we talk, or write or even think it feels as if someone or some thing is "behind our eyes" peering out and doing it for us. We fail to make the direct connections to what we are producing via thought and what our brains are actually doing. The "Mind" basically, is the output or process of the brain in action.
But what kind of brain do most of us possess? You see, as Julia notes, the quality of the thoughts are only as sound as the brain generating them. The truth is most human brains are undisciplined and defective, the latter in the sense of being hostage to natural opiates, dopamine, adrenalin as well as vasopressin. Most brains are "on drugs" most of the time. Why do so many humans believe in a god, because "most brains are on drugs most of the time". Just the action of dopamine or some randomly generated endorphin can engender a feeling of unity or "love" which isn't objectively real, but only chemically so. Even memory - based in the hypothalamus- can become hostage to out of control brain chemicals.
For this reason one can never trust what an undisciplined and untrained brain (or mind in the process) produces. And this is why humans require the antidote of critical thinking.
Here, Julia provides an excellent illustration of her critical thinking, enabled after she'd read a number of biology texts as well as having taken a quantum mechanics course simply because she wanted to see if all the claims made by Deepok Chopra were correct, pertaining to a "unifying energy field proven by quantum mechanics". When she finished her QM course, she exclaimed: "Wait!There isn't any universal field connecting everything like he said!"
Thus, she quickly concludes:
"Too many simply accept what a teacher or authority says without question".
Another illustration Julia provides is in a conversation with a friend who 100% believes in intelligent design. Like most of the ID crowd he waxes long about the "wonder" of the human eye and how it provides a superb example of design in action.
Julia, equipped with her critical thinking skills from many science texts, isn't buying:
"Why then do we have blood vessels in front of the retina, which is kinda like keeping a lens cap on a video camera?" she asks him.
And "Why do we have a blind spot?"
She concludes that if a "designer" really was responsible for the human eye, it didn't do a very good job, or didn't have the ability to do a complete job. And if that was the case, why wasn't natural selection more valid as a process to explain it?
In this way and others, Sweeny comes over without banging people over the head. At each step in her monologue (divided into chapters and named after biblical books, e.g. "Judges") she nails it- never forcing anything on the viewer but leading him or her kindly, gently and humorously to what can be only one conclusion: No God is out there.
I don't want to give away the best part which is in the last chapters to do with her own confrontation of death via serious health issues. But, suffice it to say, she never flinches in her unbelief. She understands, like all atheists, that infirmities and even approaches to death in serious illness are the prices that one pays for life as a finite creature.
Sure, the unbeliever may wince a bit from the pain (she's human after all) but she refuses to succumb to her end as a material being by substituting supernatural illusion. Thus, the avowed atheist refuses to compromise his or her unbelief to make believers' own roads easier or help them feel more secure (say if they were to see an atheist suddenly convert on his or her deathbed, as so many fantasize) . They are obliged to do this on their own.
Thus, does Julia, from her own experiences - also divest death or the threat of it, of mounds of supernatural significance - merely larded on to exact a kind of mind control. (Since most of those who resort to this tactic are incapable of using reason).
For this reason, more atheists need to see how Ms. Sweeney works and works the crowd, to her dynamic. It is interesting and may be more of what we ordinary atheists need to do!
Enter now Julia Sweeney, who should be a national resource, or at least an atheist resource. With her gentle and humorous jabs at belief, as seen in her Showtime special, "Letting Go Of God', she shows how a deft mix of satire, humor and probing questions (asked innocuously) can have a devastating effect.
Sweeney seems to understand the "honey-vinegar" meme to a tee, and so she uses her innocent appearance, twinkling eyes and self-deprecating humor to probably score more points for the unbeliever side in ten minutes of her monologue than all the atheist writers (listed above) in their three books.
Her 'Letting Go' routine takes the viewer across a mini-biopic, in examining her initial religious development - starting at age 7 ("the age of reason") until a loved one's death and her own bout with health issues. When at age 7 her mom informs her: "Now, from now on Julie, God will be keeping notes on you!" Little Julie's response is: "So wait, all the time before God didn't notice me?!"
Shortly later, her parents inform her there really isn't a "Santa", and in her mind Julie slowly pieces together the "no Santa" and "no God" arcs. After all, it always seemed odd to her that the Xmas presents showed up after High Mass on Christmas Eve.
Midway in her comedy monologue, Julia relates a Catholic retreat she had to go on with her senior class from Gonzaga Prep (then coed) and how, after everyone had received their holy communion, one of her classmates blurted: "Wouldn't it be great if we were all killed on the way back, then we'd all go straight to heaven!"
An innocent remark, but hilarious in context, since the key for Catholic entrance through the pearly gates is to die in sanctifying grace. Thus, the classmate reasoned correctly (at least in Catholic context) the best time to croak would be when one was definitely in the sanctifying grace mold, following the communion, and en route back home.
This gets Julia thinking of the existential basis of belief and why people cling to it at all. Here she references one of the famous quotes of psychologist William James ('The Will to Believe'):
"A thing doesn't work because it's true, it's true because it works!"
Which, of course, is the whole basis of modern science. Thus, rocket propulsion works as evidenced by the thousands sent up so far, from near Earth orbit, all the way to explore the outer planets. Thus, rocket propulsion is true. Not so for "transubtantiation" which is only believed to be so.
Julia then takes James' quote and applies it to God belief:
"Just because the idea of God works so well for me doesn't mean he really exists".
Which is the whole point! That is, an idea (not anything more) can work as if it is real, if the mind believes it 100%. Julia then reinforces this by reference to other invisible things, noting, "when you think about it, the invisible and the non-existent are pretty much alike".
Of course, in physics we have "invisible" things such as electric and magnetic fields, but one can establish their existence by their interactions with actual objects. For example, place a bar magnet down on a sheet of paper and move a magnetic compass (directional compass) around its periphery at a distance of 4- 6 cm and you'll find it constantly deflects, betraying the existence of the magnetic field. OR, scatter iron filings around the magnet and you'll see them re-arrange to form the pattern of the underlying field. For an electric field, simply set up an electroscope and bring a charged (polythene) rod near the conducting cap and watch as its leaves deflect. Thus, the E-field can also be demonstrated. But up to now no believer has been similarly able to demonstrate the existence of "souls", "demons" or any other phantasms from the alleged supernatural. In that case, we can safely conclude indeed, that the invisible is non-existent.
Such ruminations propel Julia in her monologue to smile and ask: "So how do I KNOW what I know?"
She then introduces Stephen Pinker's 'How the Mind Works', pointedly noting the human brain is incapable of perceiving its own functioning. This is why when we talk, or write or even think it feels as if someone or some thing is "behind our eyes" peering out and doing it for us. We fail to make the direct connections to what we are producing via thought and what our brains are actually doing. The "Mind" basically, is the output or process of the brain in action.
But what kind of brain do most of us possess? You see, as Julia notes, the quality of the thoughts are only as sound as the brain generating them. The truth is most human brains are undisciplined and defective, the latter in the sense of being hostage to natural opiates, dopamine, adrenalin as well as vasopressin. Most brains are "on drugs" most of the time. Why do so many humans believe in a god, because "most brains are on drugs most of the time". Just the action of dopamine or some randomly generated endorphin can engender a feeling of unity or "love" which isn't objectively real, but only chemically so. Even memory - based in the hypothalamus- can become hostage to out of control brain chemicals.
For this reason one can never trust what an undisciplined and untrained brain (or mind in the process) produces. And this is why humans require the antidote of critical thinking.
Here, Julia provides an excellent illustration of her critical thinking, enabled after she'd read a number of biology texts as well as having taken a quantum mechanics course simply because she wanted to see if all the claims made by Deepok Chopra were correct, pertaining to a "unifying energy field proven by quantum mechanics". When she finished her QM course, she exclaimed: "Wait!There isn't any universal field connecting everything like he said!"
Thus, she quickly concludes:
"Too many simply accept what a teacher or authority says without question".
Another illustration Julia provides is in a conversation with a friend who 100% believes in intelligent design. Like most of the ID crowd he waxes long about the "wonder" of the human eye and how it provides a superb example of design in action.
Julia, equipped with her critical thinking skills from many science texts, isn't buying:
"Why then do we have blood vessels in front of the retina, which is kinda like keeping a lens cap on a video camera?" she asks him.
And "Why do we have a blind spot?"
She concludes that if a "designer" really was responsible for the human eye, it didn't do a very good job, or didn't have the ability to do a complete job. And if that was the case, why wasn't natural selection more valid as a process to explain it?
In this way and others, Sweeny comes over without banging people over the head. At each step in her monologue (divided into chapters and named after biblical books, e.g. "Judges") she nails it- never forcing anything on the viewer but leading him or her kindly, gently and humorously to what can be only one conclusion: No God is out there.
I don't want to give away the best part which is in the last chapters to do with her own confrontation of death via serious health issues. But, suffice it to say, she never flinches in her unbelief. She understands, like all atheists, that infirmities and even approaches to death in serious illness are the prices that one pays for life as a finite creature.
Sure, the unbeliever may wince a bit from the pain (she's human after all) but she refuses to succumb to her end as a material being by substituting supernatural illusion. Thus, the avowed atheist refuses to compromise his or her unbelief to make believers' own roads easier or help them feel more secure (say if they were to see an atheist suddenly convert on his or her deathbed, as so many fantasize) . They are obliged to do this on their own.
Thus, does Julia, from her own experiences - also divest death or the threat of it, of mounds of supernatural significance - merely larded on to exact a kind of mind control. (Since most of those who resort to this tactic are incapable of using reason).
For this reason, more atheists need to see how Ms. Sweeney works and works the crowd, to her dynamic. It is interesting and may be more of what we ordinary atheists need to do!
No comments:
Post a Comment